Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
No Iterative Attacks in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Zyrusticae" data-source="post: 3545438" data-attributes="member: 43493"><p>Hmmm. Well, here's my view on how to handle things:</p><p></p><p>1. Multiply base weapon damage at each iterative attack bonus. The full attack action is gone; attacking in melee is always considered a standard action.</p><p>1a. Use rules from SAGA Edition concerning extra damage from strength. 2x Str for two-handed weapons, 1x for each hand. (Considering adopting the rule of adding damage from 1/2 character level as well. Warriors could use some help, personally.)</p><p> </p><p>2. At each iterative attack bonus, sneak attack dice is increased in size by one category (i.e. from D6 to D8, then from D8 to D10).</p><p></p><p>3. For natural attacks, primary attack is a standard action. Attacking with both primary and secondary attacks should require two swift actions, i.e. rooting the creature to the spot for the round. They do not get bonus damage from BAB, so penalties are not necessary. (Many of them already have incredible damage from high STR scores, anyway.)</p><p></p><p>Reasoning: </p><p>1. Results in a fairly close approximation of damage using normal iterative attacks in D&D, only with fewer rolls. </p><p>1a. Melee fighters are already fairly gimped in relation to spellcasters, so a little assistance on their end is hardly something I could consider imbalancing. </p><p></p><p>2. Of course, rogues lose a considerable amount of damage from the loss of iterative attacks, and this helps to compensate for that loss fairly well. </p><p></p><p>3. To be able to bite and claw at someone at the same time, it's kind of hard to be running at the same time, right? And of course, this gives incentives for warriors to move around in melee combat and avoid getting hit by the full force of a creature's wrath, which is always a good thing. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, and I have some other concerns that could use some addressing here. For example, I use house-rules regarding armor and class defense bonuses. </p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Class Defense Bonus: A class's defense bonus is determined by taking its BAB and dividing it by two, rounding up, then adding that number to 1/2 the class's base reflex save (that is, without the Dex bonus, and again, rounded up. This means the highest defense a character can ever get, without items, is 26). This is considered a dodge bonus, and stacks with all other sources of dodge AC.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Armor gives the upper half of its AC rating to the character's AC, and the lower half is used as damage reduction (ex: chainmail, which has a +5 AC rating, would give 3 to the character's AC and provides a 2/- damage reduction). This damage reduction stacks with other sources. Treat natural armor in a similar manner.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">The Logic: It only makes sense that the characters who are trained to dodge, weave, and fight the best would also happen to be the best at defending themselves. It makes absolutely no sense for a character, throughout their entire career, to not improve their ability to avoid attacks. Like, at all. It's just nonsensical.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Also, the strength of armor is not only in its ability to make otherwise painful blows pretty much harmless, but also to reduce the impact of attacks that do connect solidly. It made no sense to me that, once attacks got through, they always did full damage - regardless of whether or not the character was wearing studded leather or a full suit of platemail.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">On top of that, I've always had a thing against the way D&D made characters so dependent upon their items for defense. Without them, they're practically defenseless. This is not cool.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Consider the math:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Armor Class = 10 + ½ BAB (round up) + ½ Ref Save + Dex Bonus + ½ AC Bonus (round up) + 1/2 NA Bonus (round up) + Deflection Bonus + Dodge Bonus</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Level 20 fighter AC = 10 + 10 + 5 + 1 + 7 (+5 adamantine full plate) + 3 (amulet of natural armor +5) + 5 + 2 (Dodge + Improved Dodge) = 42</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Attack Bonus = 20 + 8 (Strength Bonus) + 5 (Enhancement Bonus) = 33</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Touch AC = 10 + 10 + 5 + 1 + 2 = 28</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Touch Attack (from a wizard) = 10 + 6 (Dex) = 16</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Damage Reduction = 6 + 2 = 8, + 3 (adamantine) = 11/-</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">[Notes: He has Lightning Reflexes, and improved dodge (which gives +1 dodge AC and +1 ref saves).]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Observations: Wizards and other characters who rely on touch attacks can still hit fighters and such fairly decently, but it's no longer so horribly easy (a +14 touch attack on an AC of 16? Pfft!).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">A wizard fighting a warrior with the combat expertise feat will likely have to resort to spells that do not involve touch attacks.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Armor still remains useful (as compared to the UA variant, where armor is completely useless), and rather than being based on what kind of armor a class can wear (which was a really stupid concept to begin with), it's based entirely on a class's offensive and defensive capabilities. Which I like, naturally.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p></p><p>The Problem: Using the 'no full attack actions' variant, damage reduction quickly becomes useless, as each attack deals enough damage to render it obsolete. Considering increasing the effect of damage reduction at every would-be iterative attack bonus, i.e. multiplying DR by 1.5x at +6, 2x at +11, and 2.5x at 16. Alternatively, one could simply give every character a DR bonus equal to 1/2, 3/4, or 1x a character's BAB to compensate for the extreme damage values at higher levels. This would represent a character's increasing propensity for turning otherwise harmful attacks into less harmful ones, or knowing techniques for reducing the effort required to do so (HPs represent dodging ability as well, remember that).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Zyrusticae, post: 3545438, member: 43493"] Hmmm. Well, here's my view on how to handle things: 1. Multiply base weapon damage at each iterative attack bonus. The full attack action is gone; attacking in melee is always considered a standard action. 1a. Use rules from SAGA Edition concerning extra damage from strength. 2x Str for two-handed weapons, 1x for each hand. (Considering adopting the rule of adding damage from 1/2 character level as well. Warriors could use some help, personally.) 2. At each iterative attack bonus, sneak attack dice is increased in size by one category (i.e. from D6 to D8, then from D8 to D10). 3. For natural attacks, primary attack is a standard action. Attacking with both primary and secondary attacks should require two swift actions, i.e. rooting the creature to the spot for the round. They do not get bonus damage from BAB, so penalties are not necessary. (Many of them already have incredible damage from high STR scores, anyway.) Reasoning: 1. Results in a fairly close approximation of damage using normal iterative attacks in D&D, only with fewer rolls. 1a. Melee fighters are already fairly gimped in relation to spellcasters, so a little assistance on their end is hardly something I could consider imbalancing. 2. Of course, rogues lose a considerable amount of damage from the loss of iterative attacks, and this helps to compensate for that loss fairly well. 3. To be able to bite and claw at someone at the same time, it's kind of hard to be running at the same time, right? And of course, this gives incentives for warriors to move around in melee combat and avoid getting hit by the full force of a creature's wrath, which is always a good thing. Oh, and I have some other concerns that could use some addressing here. For example, I use house-rules regarding armor and class defense bonuses. [SIZE=1]Class Defense Bonus: A class's defense bonus is determined by taking its BAB and dividing it by two, rounding up, then adding that number to 1/2 the class's base reflex save (that is, without the Dex bonus, and again, rounded up. This means the highest defense a character can ever get, without items, is 26). This is considered a dodge bonus, and stacks with all other sources of dodge AC. Armor gives the upper half of its AC rating to the character's AC, and the lower half is used as damage reduction (ex: chainmail, which has a +5 AC rating, would give 3 to the character's AC and provides a 2/- damage reduction). This damage reduction stacks with other sources. Treat natural armor in a similar manner. The Logic: It only makes sense that the characters who are trained to dodge, weave, and fight the best would also happen to be the best at defending themselves. It makes absolutely no sense for a character, throughout their entire career, to not improve their ability to avoid attacks. Like, at all. It's just nonsensical. Also, the strength of armor is not only in its ability to make otherwise painful blows pretty much harmless, but also to reduce the impact of attacks that do connect solidly. It made no sense to me that, once attacks got through, they always did full damage - regardless of whether or not the character was wearing studded leather or a full suit of platemail. On top of that, I've always had a thing against the way D&D made characters so dependent upon their items for defense. Without them, they're practically defenseless. This is not cool. Consider the math: Armor Class = 10 + ½ BAB (round up) + ½ Ref Save + Dex Bonus + ½ AC Bonus (round up) + 1/2 NA Bonus (round up) + Deflection Bonus + Dodge Bonus Level 20 fighter AC = 10 + 10 + 5 + 1 + 7 (+5 adamantine full plate) + 3 (amulet of natural armor +5) + 5 + 2 (Dodge + Improved Dodge) = 42 Attack Bonus = 20 + 8 (Strength Bonus) + 5 (Enhancement Bonus) = 33 Touch AC = 10 + 10 + 5 + 1 + 2 = 28 Touch Attack (from a wizard) = 10 + 6 (Dex) = 16 Damage Reduction = 6 + 2 = 8, + 3 (adamantine) = 11/- [Notes: He has Lightning Reflexes, and improved dodge (which gives +1 dodge AC and +1 ref saves).] Observations: Wizards and other characters who rely on touch attacks can still hit fighters and such fairly decently, but it's no longer so horribly easy (a +14 touch attack on an AC of 16? Pfft!). A wizard fighting a warrior with the combat expertise feat will likely have to resort to spells that do not involve touch attacks. Armor still remains useful (as compared to the UA variant, where armor is completely useless), and rather than being based on what kind of armor a class can wear (which was a really stupid concept to begin with), it's based entirely on a class's offensive and defensive capabilities. Which I like, naturally. [/SIZE] The Problem: Using the 'no full attack actions' variant, damage reduction quickly becomes useless, as each attack deals enough damage to render it obsolete. Considering increasing the effect of damage reduction at every would-be iterative attack bonus, i.e. multiplying DR by 1.5x at +6, 2x at +11, and 2.5x at 16. Alternatively, one could simply give every character a DR bonus equal to 1/2, 3/4, or 1x a character's BAB to compensate for the extreme damage values at higher levels. This would represent a character's increasing propensity for turning otherwise harmful attacks into less harmful ones, or knowing techniques for reducing the effort required to do so (HPs represent dodging ability as well, remember that). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
No Iterative Attacks in D&D
Top